Huckleberry takes another state!

[Jarod]

1) I have no problem with your caring what others propose. You should care and I wish more people would care. The problem is your insistence upon calling them unAmerican for having ideas you do not like. The very fact that you say you are worried about losing what they founders intended is friggin funny considering they WANT people to be able to bring forth these ideas and not be labeled unAmerican for having ideas that may not be popular.

2) No argument whatsoever from me on the portion where you discuss limiting government influence. But that should hold true regardless of whether or not the idea being promoted has a religious tone to it or not.

Ill stop calling it Un-American if it helps us to get to the meat of the matter.

I dont care if the tone is religous or not, I care if religen is part of the basis for rationalizing a government action.

What I have a problem with Huckleberry about is that he promoted changing the constitution so that it reflects the will of the God he belives in, and provided 0 Rational basis for that change.

Changing the constitution to reflect "Gods will" is as bad as changing the constitition to intentionally thward "Gods will"!

 

[leaningright]

as for

"A guy dances naked in an area where I can easily divert my eyes should I choose... That should be legal."

Then why are you so opposed to someone putting up a tablet with the ten commandments in a public place if it is done with private money?

Alex may or may not be opposed to this personally but your point gets a big, "Amen" from me, the key being "private money." I don't necessarily want the ten commandments to be anywhere, in fact I don't live by the 10 commandments.........I'm not a Jew. But I can't stand all of the opposition to it just because it is something religious.

 

[Jarod]

as for

"A guy dances naked in an area where I can easily divert my eyes should I choose... That should be legal."

Then why are you so opposed to someone putting up a tablet with the ten commandments in a public place if it is done with private money?

I dont have a problem with that, as long as its not done with Public funds and as long as its not done in a way that suggests that the governement is promoting it, and as long as others are just as free to put up Athistic or Satanic or Islamic simbols in the same area.

 

[Damocles]

I dont have a problem with that, as long as its not done with Public funds and as long as its not done in a way that suggests that the governement is promoting it, and as long as others are just as free to put up Athistic or Satanic or Islamic simbols in the same area.

If Atheists have symbols then it really is a religion, at least to some of them.

 

[Jarod]

If Atheists have symbols then it really is a religion, at least to some of them.

IT seems to me that it is a religon, to some. If they want a big sign next to teh 10 comandments that says, "God is Dead" sure let them have it.

 

[Damocles]

IT seems to me that it is a religon, to some. If they want a big sign next to teh 10 comandments that says, "God is Dead" sure let them have it.

I couldn't care less. And if a Judge decided to keep it in his office, I still couldn't care less.

 

[Jarod]

I couldn't care less. And if a Judge decided to keep it in his office, I still couldn't care less.

Agreed, between you and me, but you have to admit that most of those who want the 10 comandments allowed would be very upset.

 

[Epicurus]

So Jarod, being so concerned with the Constitution, do you share the same respect for the 2nd Amendment as you seem to have for the 1st?

Most liberals are highly selective constitutionalists.

 

[Jarod]

So Jarod, being so concerned with the Constitution, do you share the same respect for the 2nd Amendment as you seem to have for the 1st?

Most liberals are highly selective constitutionalists.

I do, I belive a "Well Regulated Militia is necessary..."

 

[Epicurus]

I do, I belive a "Well Regulated Militia is necessary..."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first part is clearly a dependent clause, founded upon the independent principle clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To put it more clearly, a well regulated militia (essential to the security of a free State) is dependent on the uninfringed right of the People to keep and bear arms.

 

[Damocles]

I do, I belive a "Well Regulated Militia is necessary..."

Don't forget the second part...

... , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice how the two are separated by a comma, as in all the other of the 10. They wrote the reason for, then the actual right after the comma.

, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. <-This is the right that it guarantees...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, <- This is the reason they felt we needed to have the right.

 

[Jarod]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first part is clearly a dependent clause, founded upon the independent principle clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To put it more clearly, a well regulated militia (essential to the security of a free State) is dependent on the uninfringed right of the People to keep and bear arms.

I belive in the second to the same extent as I belive in the first. Freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restriction, just like the right to bear arms.

 

[Jarod]

I cant yell fire in a crowded theater.... I cant practice a religen thats basic tennate is that I should kill people... There should be common sense limits on weapon ownership.

 

[Epicurus]

I belive in the second to the same extent as I belive in the first.

But you shouldn't. The first part is a dependent clause that would not stand on its own as a sentence. It is clearly contingent upon the assumptions of the independent clause. They are not equally weighted in value by the Founders, or it would have been phrased differently. It is not a compound sentence connected by a conjunction.

If the dependent clasue and independent clause were meant to be valued at the same level, the 2nd Amendment would read "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But it doesn't, because the sentence is not composed of two, independent, equally-weighted thoughts. It relies upon a crystal clear independent clause, and extends the assumption further in the dependent.

Are you incapable of understanding this or do you just not care what the actual wording of the Constitution is? Either one is no surprise to me, I've met plenty of liberals who openly didn't give a fuck what the Constitution said, and plenty more dishonest ones who just lay down and play stupid whenever you show them the actual text of the amendment.

 

[Epicurus]

I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer, Jarod?

Not Constitutional law, I take it.

 

[Jarod]

But you shouldn't. The first part is a dependent clause that would not stand on its own as a sentence. It is clearly contingent upon the assumptions of the independent clause. They are not equally weighted in value by the Founders, or it would have been phrased differently. It is not a compound sentence connected by a conjunction.

If the dependent clasue and independent clause were meant to be valued at the same level, the 2nd Amendment would read "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But it doesn't, because the sentence is not composed of two, independent, equally-weighted thoughts. It relies upon a crystal clear independent clause, and extends the assumption further in the dependent.

Are you incapable of understanding this or do you just not care what the actual wording of the Constitution is? Either one is no surprise to me, I've met plenty of liberals who openly didn't give a fuck what the Constitution said, and plenty more dishonest ones who just lay down and play stupid whenever you show them the actual text of the amendment.

Sorry I was not clear, I belive in the Second Amendment as much as I believe in the First. Neither are or can be absolute.

 

[Jarod]

Don't forget the second part...

... , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice how the two are separated by a comma, as in all the other of the 10. They wrote the reason for, then the actual right after the comma.

, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. <-This is the right that it guarantees...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, <- This is the reason they felt we needed to have the right.

You have to look at the reason to understand the right. Why did they add the words, "well regulated"? You have that right because we need well regulated militia.

It would be like saying..

"The right to travel being necessary, the right to drive shall not be abridged" and then using that to argue that DUI laws are unconstititional.

 

[Epicurus]

Sorry I was not clear, I belive in the Second Amendment as much as I believe in the First. Neither are or can be absolute.

That's fair enough. There are and should be very basic, common sense restrictions on both.

Not yelling fire in a movie theatre, and not allowing rocket launchers to be sold at Wal-Mart are fairly common sense regulations.

But when we start requiring total registration of every firearm, and regulations prohibiting offensive speech that we begin to cross the line of acceptable restrictions on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

 

[Epicurus]

I would like to address your statement that neither are "absolute".

They are absolute, in the context of the original wording. The Supreme Court, however, has upheld restrictions on both amendments. While the original intent of the 1st and 2nd amendments are absolutely clear, I agree with the Court that for a functional society both must be suject to some degree of regulation.

But I think we should approach such regulation with extreme caution. By making any law restricting either amendment, we are going against the wishes and values of our Founders. Every step we take toward regulating the amendments is a step away from original American values. I don't think a world where rocket launchers are available over the counter is an ideal one, but I would find a world where all weapons are banned just as frightening.

We have to accept that the 2nd and 1st amendments ARE absolute, we have just chosen to interpret them in a way that makes them less so.

Every regulation we make is a digression from our true principles, and while common-sense restrictions may be essential, they do serve to undermine our values and consequently should be approached with the utmost caution.

 

[Jarod]

That's fair enough. There are and should be very basic, common sense restrictions on both.

Not yelling fire in a movie theatre, and not allowing rocket launchers to be sold at Wal-Mart are fairly common sense regulations.

But when we start requiring total registration of every firearm, and regulations prohibiting offensive speech that we begin to cross the line of acceptable restrictions on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Agreed, its all a matter of degree.